Exploring the ‘O Sources’ - on Change/Truth

June 21, 2008

I’ll be real: Obama is not my first choice for Prez of the U.S of A. Having said that, Sen. Obama is now the only choice for voters who hope for a completely new beginning in American politics.¹ In this post, the first of several posts exploring Sen. Obama on the issues, I want to explore the larger theme of Sen. Obama’s campaign – the theme of change and the related theme of truth-telling.

In episode 5 of the podcast, in the final moments, I introduce a new term: ‘O sources.’ In the biblical world, some enjoy source criticism. Biblical scholars seek to identify the various authors/redactors - sources - of a text (e.g., the J, E, D, P sources thought to have composed the Pentateuch - the first five books of the Bible). In order to discern what Obama means by change, we must explore the ‘O sources’ (the texts of Obama[aniacs]) - distinct from, shall we say, the ‘C sources.’

In the interest of brevity, let’s focus on one meaning of the word ‘change’ in the ‘O sources.’ Mr. Obama suggests a great deal about the meaning of change in his North Carolina victory speech.

After alluding to what the Republicans will do in the general: ‘Yes, we know what’s coming. We’ve seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along. The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences to turn us against each other for pure political gain – to slice and dice this country into Red States and Blue States; blue-collar and white-collar; white and black, and brown’ - Sen. Obama states:

The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they’ll run, it’s what kind of campaign we will run. It’s what we will do to make this year different. I didn’t get into race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it.

We will end it this time not because I’m perfect – I think by now this campaign has reminded all of us of that. We will end it not by duplicating the same tactics and the same strategies as the other side, because that will just lead us down the same path of polarization and gridlock.

We will end it by telling the truth – forcefully, repeatedly, confidently – and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change.

Because that’s how we’ve always changed this country – not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up; when you – the American people – decide that the stakes are too high and the challenges are too great.

How, Mr. Obama, do you intend to bring ‘the same ole’ to an end? Answer: ‘We will end it by telling the truth – forcefully, repeatedly, confidently – and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change (read - truth?).’

In the primary season, Sen. Clinton was critiqued for supposedly saying and doing anything in order to win. And Sen. Obama seemed above such critique. But I think what one finds in the record is that Sen. Obama is willing to do what it takes to win - even if that means going back on his word. Three examples come to mind:

1) Rev. Wright: Sen. Obama made it clear - in his speech on race - that he would not disown Wright - but when it became necessary, politically speaking, Mr. Obama did disown Wright.

2) Public Financing. Mr. Obama said he would opt in - and, now, after raising 250+ million, will not opt in. It makes good sense. Mr. Obama can outspend Sen. McCain if he does not opt in.

3) James Johnson. In the primary, Obama said, ‘The real gamble in this election is to have the same old folks, do the same old things, play the same old game over and over and over and over again and somehow expect a different result [...] That’s a gamble we cannot afford. That’s a risk we cannot take.’ If this is the case, and it worked well when said against Sen. Clinton, then it’s fair to critique Sen. Obama for choosing Washington insiders to help his campaign (and he, once again, became aware of the baggage they may bring).

Why does this matter? Three reasons:

1) Mr. Obama’s campaign is built on words. How can one believe the word of Obama if he seems so willing to go back on his word when the political circumstances seem difficult? How, then, can one feel confident that Obama is a truth-teller or will be a truth-teller?

2) Changing one’s position when the going gets tough is not change (having said that, there are very valid reasons for changing one’s position: receiving better or new information, for instance).

3) In politics, in order to win, one - sometimes - makes decisions contrary to one’s standards, principles, and word (hence my reluctance, in the primary, to be too hard on either candidate for their political maneuvering; I was opposed to Sen. Clinton being demonized for doing exactly what Mr. Obama also does: deciding to win). The issue for Obama, however, is one of hypocrisy. Mr. Obama said change is coming to America - he said he represents change - and now he is doing exactly what he critiqued Sen. Clinton for doing: ‘politics as usual.’ Some politicians may be able to get away with hypocrisy - but not those who run on change.

In the past, others have noted Sen. Obama’s issues with truth-telling ( e.g., here and here) And in the end, I am left wondering if Sen. Obama’s change rhetoric, itself, may be ‘the same ole politics’ - but done differently (in a certain sense, ‘the same ole’ can’t be avoided - but it can be done differently [that's how I heal the contradiction in O's statements above]). Nonetheless, I more skeptical about John McCain. And I am left hoping Sen. Obama will come through for America.

Footnotes:

1. In the Democratic primary election cycle, I ‘found my voice,’ if you will. I learned 1) I am skeptical of political idealism - opting for modest claims about addressing practical concerns, e.g., fighting (the verb indicates a certain realism and gives the impression that human beings are sinful) to help every American gain access to health care and fighting to improve the economic situation, etc.; 2) I stand with women – e.g., women like my great-grandmother, grandmothers, and mother – by supporting the woman candidate (though I did joke that Sen. Obama seemed, stereotypically specking, to have a more feminine political orientation [his focus on dialog, healing America (which I think should have been Sen. Clinton’s platform)]; however, Sen. Clinton did not run as a woman - in the same sense Sen. Obama did not run as the black candidate – when Sen. Clinton mentioned she was a woman, she was accused of ‘playing the gender card’); 3) I feel a great deal of anxiety voting for a candidate (Obama) I do not know every well, and while I overstated the case in The Podcast – Episode 3, 4) My support for Sen. Clinton became urgent and radical when I began to understand the degree to which she was being demonized and unjustly (unfairly is too weak a description) treated. In response, I made the case that the critiques Obamamentalists launched against Sen. Clinton may also be deployed against Sen. Obama - and they stick. If Sen. Obama was not on higher ground, was not avoiding ‘politics as usual,’ and if the candidates’ stances on ‘the issues’ would not lead one to vote one way or the other (because, in my view, both have interesting and exciting ideas), one’s foundational ideas about politics (such as those noted above) and the politics of identification thrust one to commit one way or the other. Anyway, it’s time to re-direct our focus – to reexamine Sen. Obama and wonder about whether there is anything Clinton supporters can enthusiastically support. In fact, there is a lot Sen. Obama stands for that is quite exciting (and why would we not say this, given a lot of what Mr. Obama supports Sen. Clinton supports, as well). The issue for Clinton supporters, in my view, did not regard Mr. Obama’s policy positions (one exception being health care - and I would add that policy positions are important to me as a voter; however, this criterion is less helpful in a primary were the candidates share many of the same positions) – the sticky point was the change stuff (yes we can [maybe] v. yes we will). ↩

Posted by Tony Posted in Bi/Partisan Politics, Current Events, Posts by Tony